Mutual assent

An unchanged, timely response

A buyer offers $420,000 with a September 30 closing. Before the stated deadline, the seller signs the unchanged offered terms and completes delivery through the expressly required platform. The exercise supplies no other formation defect.

1. The response matches the proposal, including the stated price and closing.
2. The exercise supplies timely communication by the required method. Other contract elements and any agreed later conditions remain separate questions.

Answer: These facts show objective assent to the offered bargain.

Agreement depends on another closing date

The seller returns an otherwise unsigned offer with a response saying, I accept only if closing is moved forward by two weeks. The proposed earlier closing was not part of the buyer’s offer.

1. The seller is requiring a changed performance term, rather than accepting the offered closing.
2. A signature or the word accept does not remove the condition. Agreement to the changed bargain still has to be established.

Answer: This is a new conditional proposal, ordinarily a counteroffer.

A private signature misses the required communication

The offer expressly requires the signed acceptance to be received through a designated method before its deadline. The seller signs at the kitchen table but keeps the document until after that deadline. No renewal, option or other applicable exception is supplied.

1. The exercise requires receipt, not merely signing before the deadline.
2. A later delivery cannot unilaterally restore the expired ordinary power of acceptance. Do not make that result a universal rule about every contract’s communication terms.

Answer: The private signature does not establish timely acceptance under these instructions.

An unspoken reservation

The parties’ outward words and properly communicated acts show an unconditional agreement to the offered terms. One party privately plans to reconsider tomorrow. No fraud, mistake, coercion or other recognized defect is supplied.

1. The other party was not told that acceptance was conditional.
2. A later change of mind is different from proving that the offered bargain was never accepted or that a recognized defense applies.

Answer: The private reservation alone does not negate the objective assent shown.

An offeror tries to impose acceptance by silence

An owner sends an unsolicited $500,000 proposal stating that no reply by noon will count as acceptance. The recipient remains silent. The exercise supplies no prior dealings, retained benefit or other qualifying context.

1. The offeror cannot supply the recipient’s agreement merely by declaring that no response means yes.
2. Different facts involving prior dealings or acceptance of offered benefits need their own analysis. They are not supplied in this problem.

Answer: Silence alone does not create the claimed assent here.

Electronic signatures refer to different terms

The buyer electronically signs version four. The seller signs version five, which adds an $8,000 repair credit. The record supplies no later agreement resolving that difference.

1. Electronic recognition does not make the content of the two versions identical.
2. Preserve the actual signed records and communications. Verify whether a later authorized act or agreed final set resolves the mismatch; do not assume the file with the larger version number controls.

Answer: The two signatures alone do not prove assent to one final repair-credit bargain.

The rear parcel is unclear

The document says the rear parcel is included. The parties appear to use that phrase for different adjoining parcels, and the exercise does not supply a clear controlling description or other resolution.

1. Compare the legal descriptions, exhibits, communications and what the parties knew. An ambiguity is not resolved by assuming identical private meanings.
2. This is a risk in proving the claimed bargain, not an automatic conclusion that every ambiguous contract is void or incapable of interpretation.

Answer: The ambiguity needs investigation and legal interpretation, rather than a broker choosing the parcel.

Calling a correction minor does not settle acceptance

Before any contract is formed, a party returns an offered agreement after changing its text and calls the edits harmless clerical corrections. The other side never accepts the changed proposal.

1. In Finnin v. Bob Lindsay, the Illinois court applied strict compliance to changes described as minor in a dealership-stock transaction and affirmed the judgment that no contract was formed.
2. That is a warning about changing the offered terms before formation. It does not decide every ministerial act under an already existing option or every proposal made under a formed contract’s review clause.

Answer: Do not assume the minor label makes the altered response an effective acceptance.

A record arrives before anyone opens it

The parties have not otherwise agreed about receipt. The accepted electronic system is designated for these records, can retrieve this record and receives it in a processable form at 4:58 p.m. A person opens it at 5:12 p.m. No known actual failure is supplied.

1. Opening occurs fourteen minutes after the supplied system-entry time. That difference does not itself move statutory receipt to the opening time.
2. The exercise supplies the required system conditions. It does not decide whether a private contract instead requires a different event, whether the response accepts the offer or whether other formalities are satisfied.

Answer: Under section 15’s supplied default conditions, receipt can occur at 4:58 p.m.; individual awareness is not required.

A receipt signal does not reconcile different contents

A delivery acknowledgement appears for an electronic response, but the retained proposed agreement omits a repair credit while the recipient’s copy includes an $8,000 credit. The exercise supplies no evidence resolving which content both parties accepted.

1. Section 15(f) does not make receipt acknowledgement proof that the received contents correspond to what was sent.
2. Preserve the actual files, incorporated terms and communication record. Do not choose a version simply because it has a receipt signal, a later filename or a signature.

Answer: The acknowledgement alone does not establish corresponding content or assent to one credit term.

1. What does mutual assent concern?

1. Automatic mortgage approval
2. An already recorded deed
3. Objective agreement to the same bargain
4. Identical unspoken thoughts

2. Which ordinarily controls when the parties’ manifested agreement is clear?

1. A private reservation never communicated
2. Only the appraiser’s intention
3. A neighbor’s interpretation
4. Objective words and conduct in context

3. Before formation, a seller responds, I accept only if you increase the price. What is the ordinary characterization?

1. An executed deed
2. An unconditional acceptance
3. A counteroffer requiring a changed bargain
4. A mortgage lien

4. An unsolicited offer says no reply means yes. There are no prior dealings, benefits or other qualifying facts, and the recipient does nothing. What is the correct conclusion?

1. Acceptance always occurs
2. A land contract automatically forms
3. A deed is delivered
4. Silence alone does not establish acceptance here

5. What must the claimed electronic acceptances establish about the bargain?

1. Cash payment of earnest money in every case
2. Assent to the same controlling terms
3. The same ink color
4. A previously recorded deed

6. What ordinarily happens when a genuine counteroffer is made before a contract is formed?

1. The counteroffer becomes a deed
2. The original offer remains open forever
3. The original offer is rejected, subject to the governing terms and applicable exceptions
4. The original offer is recorded automatically

7. Which describes a mutual mistake rather than a unilateral error?

1. One party privately changes a plan
2. The parties share an erroneous assumption concerning a material aspect of the bargain
3. A broker misses a routine call
4. A seller deliberately proposes a different price

8. Does a signature conclusively defeat every claim involving consent, authority or alteration?

1. Yes, whenever it is electronic
2. Yes, in every contract
3. No; the relevant act, authority and recognized defenses still matter
4. Yes, if made in blue ink

9. What should a broker do with conflicting signed versions?

1. Choose the more profitable version
2. Record a deed immediately
3. Preserve the versions, flag the mismatch and refer the disputed legal issue
4. Delete the earlier file

10. What is a useful first step in an assent problem?

1. Order a tax certificate
2. Calculate depreciation
3. Assume that any two signatures match
4. Compare the actual offer and claimed acceptance in chronological context

11. How do assent and consideration differ?

1. Consideration proves that every signed version matched
2. They mean exactly the same thing
3. Assent concerns agreement to terms; consideration concerns the bargained exchange
4. Assent always requires cash earnest money

12. Does objective agreement alone eliminate the separate Illinois signed-writing issue for an ordinary land-contract enforcement claim?

1. Yes; writing never matters after a conversation
2. Yes; signatures are forbidden
3. No; the Frauds Act and other applicable requirements remain separate
4. Yes; only the closing date matters

13. An offer expressly requires receipt of signed acceptance before its deadline. The seller signs privately but delivers only after expiration, with no renewal or exception supplied. What does the signature establish?

1. It forces the offeror to extend the deadline
2. It does not establish timely acceptance under that receipt requirement
3. It automatically satisfies receipt
4. It records title

14. Is a genuine inquiry about a possible different term always the same as a conditional counteroffer?

1. No; every inquiry automatically accepts
2. No; the whole communication and context determine whether agreement is conditional
3. Yes; the word would always controls
4. Yes; every question rejects an offer

15. Clear outward acceptance is supplied, with no recognized defect, but one party privately regrets the price. What is the sound conclusion?

1. The regret automatically cancels the agreement
2. Private regret alone does not negate the objective assent shown
3. The deed is automatically invalid
4. The recipient must guess the regret

16. The buyer signs terms without a repair credit and the seller signs a version adding an $8,000 credit. No resolution is supplied. What do the signatures alone prove?

1. Agreement to a $16,000 credit
2. Agreement to whichever version has the larger number
3. They do not alone establish one final agreed credit term
4. Every contract element

17. Which Illinois framework replaces the page’s repealed Electronic Commerce Security Act citation?

1. A rule requiring blue ink for all contracts
2. A rule that every email is binding
3. A federal rule eliminating state contract law
4. The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, 815 ILCS 333

18. Under the current electronic-transactions framework, what does an attributed electronic signature establish by itself?

1. That the same content reached every recipient
2. It identifies an act attributable to the person; the act’s legal effect still depends on context, agreement and law
3. That every proposed term is enforceable
4. That no authority question can arise

19. Does an ordinary offer deadline always create a separately enforceable promise to keep the offer open?

1. No; an ordinary deadline and a supported option or other applicable protection are different
2. Yes; every deadline creates a paid option
3. No; options can never exist
4. Yes; no other contract term matters

20. What is the sound response to a claimed typo or mistake?

1. Every typo automatically voids every contract
2. Only the wrongdoer can choose the remedy
3. Risk allocation never matters
4. Identify the error, stage, parties’ knowledge, risk and applicable remedy instead of assuming automatic cancellation

21. A proposed acceptance changes the offer and calls the change minor. What does Finnin warn Illinois candidates against assuming?

1. That the actual stage of the transaction matters
2. That an existing option can have its own exercise terms
3. That a minor or clerical label automatically makes the changed response an effective acceptance
4. That the whole communication should be read

22. Which best describes the attorney-review issue in Patel v. McGrath?

1. Every modification request automatically rejects every existing contract
2. Every Illinois offer remains unaccepted for five business days
3. The court finally awarded the buyers title
4. The parties had formed a contract, and the particular review clause operated as a condition subsequent

23. Unless the parties otherwise agree, does section 15 require a person to read a qualifying electronic record before statutory receipt can occur?

1. Yes; receipt always waits for opening
2. No; every attempted send counts even if nothing reaches the required system
3. Yes; a printed copy is always required
4. No; entry into the designated or used, retrievable system in processable form can establish receipt without individual awareness

24. An electronic acknowledgement establishes receipt under section 15(f). What does that acknowledgement alone fail to establish?

1. That any electronic record was received
2. That the received content corresponds to the content sent
3. That electronic records can exist
4. That context matters